To quote screenwriter Ol Parker:
“I was surprised by the bad reviews. It seemed to me so well made and so well meaning. You really have to have a hard heart not to like it. But audiences love it, and that’s what counts.”
The Official Review Thread of 2012
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
True, but I wouldn't completely exclude a Best Picture nomination (though admittedly that would probably mean at least one more nod other than Best Supporting Actress, and I honestly can't believe that the Writers will nominate this kind of screenplay).OscarGuy wrote:The only problem with your supposition Italiano is that The Help was a "white guilt" hit that allowed the Academy to feel "good" about selecting the crowd pleaser as a Best Picture nominee. Chocolat was only nominated because it was Weinstein's Lasse Hallstrom fluff and the film he pushed for that year and was the film that began Weinstein's slow, but eventual downfall before the collapse of Miramax (Chicago notwithstanding).
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
The only problem with your supposition Italiano is that The Help was a "white guilt" hit that allowed the Academy to feel "good" about selecting the crowd pleaser as a Best Picture nominee. Chocolat was only nominated because it was Weinstein's Lasse Hallstrom fluff and the film he pushed for that year and was the film that began Weinstein's slow, but eventual downfall before the collapse of Miramax (Chicago notwithstanding).
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
There's not much to say about that triumph of emptiness known as The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - its cliches are so obvious that one doesn't even have to make a list. It's India, but it could be Southern Italy or Spain or Greece - any foreign and sunny place where English people can go to to "find themselves", "change their lives" - and at the same time teach something to those ignorant, arm-waving natives. It has been done before, sometimes even pleasantly enough despite the racist subtext - the Brits CAN write, and as someone in the movie says, they also have a good sense of humor. Usually. Unfortunately whoever wrote this movie definitely isn't a new Terence Rattigan, and he doesn't provide his (otherwise very good) actors with interesting characters to play. The movie is too weak and light to be annoying - one can see it and forget it: it's harmless. But as it will be Oscar-nominated in at least one category, we must take it more seriously here, and wonder, for example, why Maggie Smith will get an absolutely unnecessary Oscar nomination for such a caricature (and one, as others have pointed out, which suddenly changes during the movie without any real reason to do so). Nobody from this film should be even just considered for a nomination, of course, but if they really had to pick someone, it should probably be Penelope Wilton or Celia Imrie, who at least make their roles somehow human. Still, the real shock would be a Best Picture nomination - which could happen, if only because this is an "actors' movie", so many members of the Acting Branch will vote for it. Even more importantly, ir's an "old actors' movie", which is very reassuring for those who fear that getting older will prevent them from finding parts in movies. And to be honest, it's not like The Help - which was nominated last year - was a better movie. Chocolat - which was nominated under the old five-slots rules - WAS better, but only slightly so: these feel-good movies are so often appreciated by the Academy that, on second thought, it probably wouldn't be a shock at all. And as far as movies about old people go, it will be interesting to see which one, between this and Amour, will get more Oscar nominations.
-
Precious Doll
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4453
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Over the past couple of years Ben Wheatley has been carving out an interesting filmography in the UK.
His first film made in 2009, Down Terrace is best described as a possible example of what a contemporary gangster drama directed by Mike Leigh might look like. It was an interesting debut that held promise of better to come.
His next film Kill List also received much acclaim though I found it a trite retread of what he had already done meets The Wicker Man.
I am pleased that his third feature film, Sightseers, lives up to the raves that it received at Cannes last May. Sightseers tells the story of Chris (Steve Oram) & Tina (Alice Lowe) who have been dating for a few months and decide to take a week's vacation travelling around the English countryside. What starts out in a very similar way to Mike Leigh's brilliant Nuts in May (1976) soon moves into more sinister territory as the couple, seemingly pushed to the edge, embark on a killing spree. I suppose one could say that this is what a serial killer film written and directed by Mike Leigh might look like. At the beginning of the film they appear to be quiet similar to Keith and Candice Marie from Nuts in May.
Lead actors Steve Oram & Alice Lowe (both great in the film) co-wrote the screenplay with 'additional material' from Amy Jump and Wheatley handles the material beautiful building the tension slowly amongst the beautiful English countryside. Whilst the film has it's share of black humour it is never swamped by it.
This film I've seen this year for the United Kingdom and singles Wheatley as a major talent. I hope he stays away from Hollywood.
His first film made in 2009, Down Terrace is best described as a possible example of what a contemporary gangster drama directed by Mike Leigh might look like. It was an interesting debut that held promise of better to come.
His next film Kill List also received much acclaim though I found it a trite retread of what he had already done meets The Wicker Man.
I am pleased that his third feature film, Sightseers, lives up to the raves that it received at Cannes last May. Sightseers tells the story of Chris (Steve Oram) & Tina (Alice Lowe) who have been dating for a few months and decide to take a week's vacation travelling around the English countryside. What starts out in a very similar way to Mike Leigh's brilliant Nuts in May (1976) soon moves into more sinister territory as the couple, seemingly pushed to the edge, embark on a killing spree. I suppose one could say that this is what a serial killer film written and directed by Mike Leigh might look like. At the beginning of the film they appear to be quiet similar to Keith and Candice Marie from Nuts in May.
Lead actors Steve Oram & Alice Lowe (both great in the film) co-wrote the screenplay with 'additional material' from Amy Jump and Wheatley handles the material beautiful building the tension slowly amongst the beautiful English countryside. Whilst the film has it's share of black humour it is never swamped by it.
This film I've seen this year for the United Kingdom and singles Wheatley as a major talent. I hope he stays away from Hollywood.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
A few thoughts about The Perks of Being a Wallflower...
Chbosky both embraces and subverts a lot of the cliches of your "traditional" high school film. The tone is odd for a high school film (although this isn't one that many high schoolers would like), veering--unexpectedly, at times--from high school comedy to a regular, fairly light family drama, to an absolutely heartbreaking tragedy. It's not always successful, and it's clear that Chbosky's strongest suit is as a storyteller, but for the most part he gets the job done visually. If he gets a little hyperactive visually towards the end, I can forgive that because he does get some sequences just right, especially the almost unbearable awkwardness of the situation where Logan Lerman's character breaks up with his girlfriend (his first) at the worst possible moment. These characters are about 8-10 years older than me, but I recognized a lot of the world up there on the screen. I may not have ever gone to drag performances of The Rocky Horror Picture Show with my friends, but I recognized the group dynamic--those lazy conversations, the way the group can change suddenly depending who's mad at each other. Not much about the movie would work without Logan Lerman in the lead role. It's an ensemble piece, and the entire ensemble is very good, but it asks a lot of its leading man, and he delivers completely. He perfectly captures all of the roller-coaster emotions that teenagers tend to go through; you can see him change the way he carries himself as he gradually gains confidence and becomes more comfortable with himself and around his friends, but you can still see how close he is to having it all fall apart. At the end, when he starts to fall apart emotionally, it hits hard. Ezra Miller and Emma Watson both got a (minor) critics award for their work here. Lerman should've gotten one as well.
Chbosky both embraces and subverts a lot of the cliches of your "traditional" high school film. The tone is odd for a high school film (although this isn't one that many high schoolers would like), veering--unexpectedly, at times--from high school comedy to a regular, fairly light family drama, to an absolutely heartbreaking tragedy. It's not always successful, and it's clear that Chbosky's strongest suit is as a storyteller, but for the most part he gets the job done visually. If he gets a little hyperactive visually towards the end, I can forgive that because he does get some sequences just right, especially the almost unbearable awkwardness of the situation where Logan Lerman's character breaks up with his girlfriend (his first) at the worst possible moment. These characters are about 8-10 years older than me, but I recognized a lot of the world up there on the screen. I may not have ever gone to drag performances of The Rocky Horror Picture Show with my friends, but I recognized the group dynamic--those lazy conversations, the way the group can change suddenly depending who's mad at each other. Not much about the movie would work without Logan Lerman in the lead role. It's an ensemble piece, and the entire ensemble is very good, but it asks a lot of its leading man, and he delivers completely. He perfectly captures all of the roller-coaster emotions that teenagers tend to go through; you can see him change the way he carries himself as he gradually gains confidence and becomes more comfortable with himself and around his friends, but you can still see how close he is to having it all fall apart. At the end, when he starts to fall apart emotionally, it hits hard. Ezra Miller and Emma Watson both got a (minor) critics award for their work here. Lerman should've gotten one as well.
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Hello everyone, Season's Greetings & Merry Christmas and all that. Thought I'd drop in before my holiday family commitments heat up. In recent weeks I've caught, or caught up with, a few 2012 releases ...
Lincoln (Spielberg) - it is what it is, which is middlebrow historical pageantry. I like that it portrays the ins-and-outs of political machinations as such (in this it's as close as Spielberg has ever come to The Rise to Power of Louis XIV, which is still a long way away); I also think it has the makings of a pretty interesting take on marriage between Abe & Mary Todd. That all said, I wonder what the point is of this very dutiful recreation of men in back rooms deliberating ... it's not realism so much as verisimilitude. The overall effect is like a really uncanny wax figure.
The Three Stooges (Farrelly brothers) - not exactly an unqualified success, but this Blues Brothers-ish contains some excellent gags (including the casting stunts of Jane Lynch & Larry David as nuns). Maybe the weakest Farrelly film, though I never saw Fever Pitch, which means I'd still probably rather watch it than most cineplex slurry these days.
Time and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie (Tim & Eric, I believe) - I was spurred to see this by Craig Keller's recommendation on his blog: "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is the most ruthless and incendiary take-down of the modern Hollywood idiom — moving on from the televisual/early-Internet rabbit-hole of the Adult Swim show — ever made. Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is, unequivocally, a masterpiece." I'd say calling it a masterpiece plays too loosely with the concept but I'm usually game for comedies like this (cf. Pootie Tang) which detonate conventions and produce something out of all the wreckage as its falling.
Hyde Park on Hudson (Michell) - what an modest but unexpectedly pleasant surprise (though director Roger Michell is regularly capable of such things). I anticipated highly respectful Masterpiece Theater storytelling, and indeed there's more than a whiff of that - in fact the whole things plays a bit like Presidential Sister-Wives of Downton Abbey, a portmanteau of TV modes that goes down very well in my household. But soon enough a sense of humor emerges, and then a sense of grace (which proceeds from the same basis as the humor, rather than from the elegant pageantry). I'd be so much happier with contemporary commercial cinema if more films were like this ... not in terms of their respectable content or their demographic targets, per se, but more in terms of being multi-faceted and very economical. The movie is an hour and a half and yet we get a nice array of well-drawn characters whose personal and political circumstances are sketched out efficiently, ease, and with levity. I'm not saying this is a great film or anything like that. But I did quite like it. (I suspect Damien would have enjoyed it too.)
The Kid with a Bike (Dardenne brothers) - the Dardennes seem to hew toward this hermetic social problem model of cinema; in some ways it seems highly social realist, we're dealing with poverty, immigration, abandoned children, etc., in the Dardenne Europe just as in the real Europe. At the same time there is a magical moralist quality, a way of approaching problems and expressing them narratively that is a little like a parable. For me, it can be tricky to figure out whether a particular character or event is meant as an invocation by means of aesthetic realism of a figure of the social system or instead as a more unique, abstracted study of a moral-ethical quandary ... because in some sense both are equally true, and inhabit one another, like the famous duck-rabbit illustration. At any rate, a highly tasteful and in some ways predictable film, but also very moving, very lean. Strong performances. Some remarkable quick moving camerawork. Liked it a lot.
Lincoln (Spielberg) - it is what it is, which is middlebrow historical pageantry. I like that it portrays the ins-and-outs of political machinations as such (in this it's as close as Spielberg has ever come to The Rise to Power of Louis XIV, which is still a long way away); I also think it has the makings of a pretty interesting take on marriage between Abe & Mary Todd. That all said, I wonder what the point is of this very dutiful recreation of men in back rooms deliberating ... it's not realism so much as verisimilitude. The overall effect is like a really uncanny wax figure.
The Three Stooges (Farrelly brothers) - not exactly an unqualified success, but this Blues Brothers-ish contains some excellent gags (including the casting stunts of Jane Lynch & Larry David as nuns). Maybe the weakest Farrelly film, though I never saw Fever Pitch, which means I'd still probably rather watch it than most cineplex slurry these days.
Time and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie (Tim & Eric, I believe) - I was spurred to see this by Craig Keller's recommendation on his blog: "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is the most ruthless and incendiary take-down of the modern Hollywood idiom — moving on from the televisual/early-Internet rabbit-hole of the Adult Swim show — ever made. Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is, unequivocally, a masterpiece." I'd say calling it a masterpiece plays too loosely with the concept but I'm usually game for comedies like this (cf. Pootie Tang) which detonate conventions and produce something out of all the wreckage as its falling.
Hyde Park on Hudson (Michell) - what an modest but unexpectedly pleasant surprise (though director Roger Michell is regularly capable of such things). I anticipated highly respectful Masterpiece Theater storytelling, and indeed there's more than a whiff of that - in fact the whole things plays a bit like Presidential Sister-Wives of Downton Abbey, a portmanteau of TV modes that goes down very well in my household. But soon enough a sense of humor emerges, and then a sense of grace (which proceeds from the same basis as the humor, rather than from the elegant pageantry). I'd be so much happier with contemporary commercial cinema if more films were like this ... not in terms of their respectable content or their demographic targets, per se, but more in terms of being multi-faceted and very economical. The movie is an hour and a half and yet we get a nice array of well-drawn characters whose personal and political circumstances are sketched out efficiently, ease, and with levity. I'm not saying this is a great film or anything like that. But I did quite like it. (I suspect Damien would have enjoyed it too.)
The Kid with a Bike (Dardenne brothers) - the Dardennes seem to hew toward this hermetic social problem model of cinema; in some ways it seems highly social realist, we're dealing with poverty, immigration, abandoned children, etc., in the Dardenne Europe just as in the real Europe. At the same time there is a magical moralist quality, a way of approaching problems and expressing them narratively that is a little like a parable. For me, it can be tricky to figure out whether a particular character or event is meant as an invocation by means of aesthetic realism of a figure of the social system or instead as a more unique, abstracted study of a moral-ethical quandary ... because in some sense both are equally true, and inhabit one another, like the famous duck-rabbit illustration. At any rate, a highly tasteful and in some ways predictable film, but also very moving, very lean. Strong performances. Some remarkable quick moving camerawork. Liked it a lot.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Beasts of the Southern Wild is a nice, little movie that even I would have probably praised more if I had never heard of it and had suddenly discovered it at some festival. It's sincere, it's made with obvious care and love, and it has some interesting things to say about the small community it's set in and about the magical world of children. Unfortunately when you see it expecting a kind of masterpiece - and some reviews are really too positive - your reaction will probably be less enthusiastic - and other movies have certainly dealt with such subjects before and better. It's not an unforgettable experience. And the child is admittedly natural and unaffected, but also, sadly, not very expressive (an Oscar nomination would be really too much for her). The man playing her father is very good though.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Maybe. I found the Madagascar films to be genuinely endearing films that are quite funny. They aren't high art or sophisticated humor, they just exist in their own little world. I'd say they are the best fit to the "cartoon" word out there as they seem to appeal to kids and children-at-heart adults more so than Fox Animation (the tedious Ice Age films), which just appeals to lowest-common-denominator people.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath, & Conrad Vernon)
So, you know what doesn't suck? This movie.
This is the first Madagascar movie I made it through and I had a pretty wonderful time. This is a loony movie that wastes no time taking off, incorporating fun new characters, and ratcheting up the most solid ratio of juvenile and referential jokes of any movie of its kind I can remember. It's both a joke and plot machine, and I couldn't really tell when you it was specifically when I became emotionally engaged with this film but for something so effortlessly ridiculous that's really saying something. Maybe when a movie succeeds at incorporating this many jokes into a plot that moves along this quickly, you just root for it and the characters become beneficiary. Megamind remains the smartest of the Dreamworks Animated films and How to Train Your Dragon is the most enthralling, but Madagascar 3 is certainly the most surprisingly entertaining.
An example of the kind of joke the film gets very right: Sacha Baron Cohen's Lemur king falls in love with a bear in a little dress that's always on a tricycle. Falls head over heels in love. Except it's not an anthropomorphic bear with a personalty. It's a bear. It's a big, dumb smelly bear. And Cohen's Lemur King is obsessed with it, and presumably they fuck quite a bit and have loud domestic squabbles. It's played just note-perfect. It's more than a joke, it's a feature-length sensibility. Do I need to watch the other movies all the way through?
So, you know what doesn't suck? This movie.
This is the first Madagascar movie I made it through and I had a pretty wonderful time. This is a loony movie that wastes no time taking off, incorporating fun new characters, and ratcheting up the most solid ratio of juvenile and referential jokes of any movie of its kind I can remember. It's both a joke and plot machine, and I couldn't really tell when you it was specifically when I became emotionally engaged with this film but for something so effortlessly ridiculous that's really saying something. Maybe when a movie succeeds at incorporating this many jokes into a plot that moves along this quickly, you just root for it and the characters become beneficiary. Megamind remains the smartest of the Dreamworks Animated films and How to Train Your Dragon is the most enthralling, but Madagascar 3 is certainly the most surprisingly entertaining.
An example of the kind of joke the film gets very right: Sacha Baron Cohen's Lemur king falls in love with a bear in a little dress that's always on a tricycle. Falls head over heels in love. Except it's not an anthropomorphic bear with a personalty. It's a bear. It's a big, dumb smelly bear. And Cohen's Lemur King is obsessed with it, and presumably they fuck quite a bit and have loud domestic squabbles. It's played just note-perfect. It's more than a joke, it's a feature-length sensibility. Do I need to watch the other movies all the way through?
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6398
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, Jed Brophy, Mark Hadlow, Adam Brown, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Barry Humphries, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch.
Dir: Peter Jackson.
I'm a fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films. It was only a matter of time before there was a film adaptation of The Hobbit. I went "hmmm" when I heard it was being split into two but I got very, very concerned when Peter Jackson was announced it was gonna be another trilogy. As for the film itself, it's not bad but it's nowhere near as great as any of the films of the original trilogy. Though it's seldom boring, the film does feel padded out. Though I must say the third hour (and when Gollum is on-screen) comes close the majesty of the original films. I saw this in 48 fps/HFR 3D. It felt weird at first but then I got used to it. Except for small number of shots, I felt it really wasn't needed to fully appreciate and enjoy the visuals. The CGI and makeup, however, looks and feels a bit more real and I jumped a couple of times. I will say it's optional. All in all, not a bad movie but falls short of the greatness of the original trilogy.
Oscar Prospects: The usual tech awards. Nothing major.
Grade: B.
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, Jed Brophy, Mark Hadlow, Adam Brown, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Barry Humphries, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch.
Dir: Peter Jackson.
I'm a fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films. It was only a matter of time before there was a film adaptation of The Hobbit. I went "hmmm" when I heard it was being split into two but I got very, very concerned when Peter Jackson was announced it was gonna be another trilogy. As for the film itself, it's not bad but it's nowhere near as great as any of the films of the original trilogy. Though it's seldom boring, the film does feel padded out. Though I must say the third hour (and when Gollum is on-screen) comes close the majesty of the original films. I saw this in 48 fps/HFR 3D. It felt weird at first but then I got used to it. Except for small number of shots, I felt it really wasn't needed to fully appreciate and enjoy the visuals. The CGI and makeup, however, looks and feels a bit more real and I jumped a couple of times. I will say it's optional. All in all, not a bad movie but falls short of the greatness of the original trilogy.
Oscar Prospects: The usual tech awards. Nothing major.
Grade: B.
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
It's actually more like 2 3/4 stars. The first hour I was giving it 3 1/2 stars and thinking that the critics were being overly harsh. The 2nd hour, however, was 2 star territory. The third hour was 3-3 1/2 star territory (although the Riddles in the Dark scene was 4 star territory). It ended on a high note for me, though, so... 2 1/2 stars at worst.Sabin wrote:Be honest...
Is it really a three star movie? Or is it a two/two and a half star movie and you're waiting to see if the other two are much better so you can feel more comfortable knowing that the aggregate rating is stronger than the disappointing first entry?
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Be honest...
Is it really a three star movie? Or is it a two/two and a half star movie and you're waiting to see if the other two are much better so you can feel more comfortable knowing that the aggregate rating is stronger than the disappointing first entry?
Is it really a three star movie? Or is it a two/two and a half star movie and you're waiting to see if the other two are much better so you can feel more comfortable knowing that the aggregate rating is stronger than the disappointing first entry?
"How's the despair?"
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was my most anticipated film of the year. Hell, it was my most anticipated film since The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 9 years ago. I am an unabashed, unapologetic Lord of the Rings nerd. I've watched Jackson's trilogy countless times, read Tolkien's novels at least 4 times, and have collected hundreds of dollars of memorabilia over the years. So obviously I was very excited to see this movie and was expecting, even with all the negative reviews, to love the hell out of it despite what anyone else may think. Which is why it is so painful for me to write that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn't a very good movie.
That's not to say that there weren't good things in the movie. I actually disagree with the critics that the beginning of the movie was too long. The first 45 minutes was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. With the exception of a completely unnecessary set up involving Ian Holm and Elijah Wood as Old Bilbo and Frodo, it moved along at a brisk pace, spending probably less time in the Shire than The Fellowship of the Ring did. The last 45 minutes or so are also very good, and leave me hopeful that the next two installments will see the franchise return to its former glory. As has been mentioned by virtually every critic, even those who didn't especially like the movie, the Riddles in the Dark scene, in which Bilbo acquires the One Ring and plays a game of riddles with Gollum, is exceptionally well done, matching some of the best moments of the original trilogy. Also, Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, and Richard Armitage are fantastic as Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. I could even make the argument that Martin Freeman's Bilbo makes for a more engaging protagonist than Elijah Wood's Frodo. He is perfectly cast, handling the both the deadly serious moments and the lighter, more comedic moments with equal efficiency. And, of course, Andy Serkis is, as always, a delight as Gollum.
However, contrary to what critics have said, it wasn't until the company actually left the Shire that the film takes a turn for the worse. The middle hour and a half is horribly overproduced and padded all to hell. Almost immediately after leaving the Shire, the group is attacked by Orcs, something that not only never happened in the original book, but was never mentioned in any of the Appendices for The Return of the King where Jackson and company allegedly mined for additional background material. The sequence with the stone trolls was not only badly written, stupid, and slapsticky, but [SPOILER ALERT!!!!] deviates from Tolkien's text in having Bilbo outsmart the trolls instead of Gandalf. There's also a very tacked on subplot involving a very pissed off Orc named Azog who just happens to be Thorin's mortal enemy, and who pursues the characters for the duration of almost the entire movie. There's another seemingly pointless subplot involving Radagast the Brown, a rather irritating wizard who likes to hang out with animals and rides a bunny sleigh(!). He's somehow pieced together that the Necromancer, a dark wizard who resides at the stronghold of Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood, is Sauron. Additionally, the Sauron/Necromancer/White Council subplot not only feels out of place in this movie, but feels like unnecessary attempt to try to ties the events of The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings.
I'd also like to mention that I didn't much care for the look of the movie, particularly the obviously CGI goblins and sets. One of the things that made the original LOTR films so captivating was the amount of craftsmanship that went into making the world feel like a real, tangible place. The heavy prosthetics and "bigatures", very large miniature scale models that made impossibly large sets look so believably authentic, have been axed in favor of CGI, which gives the world a very artificial look. In fact, there is so much CGI that it doesn't even look as if it belongs in the same franchise as the other three movies, let alone takes place in the same world. The Orc Azog is particularly distracting, as he is a 100% CGI creation and looks it. I was also distracted by the Great Goblin, ruler of Goblin-town beneath the Misty Mountains, who is not only CGI, but almost looks as if he belongs in a Saturday-morning-cartoon. I'd also like to mention that I saw this film in 24fps instead of Jackson's preferred 48fps, so I can't comment on how it looks at a higher framerate. I also watched it in 3D, which was actually pretty unnecessary. I would advise watching this one in 2D, as 3D adds absolutely nothing.
On a more positive note, I mentioned earlier that the film picks up in the last hour-to-45 minutes, and I mean it. The Goblin-town sequence is exceptionally fast-paced and exciting, in spite of the overabundance of CGI. With the exception of a few impossibly over-the-top stunts (which actually make some of the more over-the-top moments of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull look tame by comparison), I actually started to become really engaged in the proceedings and left the theater feeling a lot more optimistic for the next two films in the trilogy. I can only hope that Peter Jackson takes the criticisms to heart by removing some of the bloat that was ultimately the film's undoing.
Overall, I give the movie 3 out of 4 stars, although it could easily change upon repeat viewing.
That's not to say that there weren't good things in the movie. I actually disagree with the critics that the beginning of the movie was too long. The first 45 minutes was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. With the exception of a completely unnecessary set up involving Ian Holm and Elijah Wood as Old Bilbo and Frodo, it moved along at a brisk pace, spending probably less time in the Shire than The Fellowship of the Ring did. The last 45 minutes or so are also very good, and leave me hopeful that the next two installments will see the franchise return to its former glory. As has been mentioned by virtually every critic, even those who didn't especially like the movie, the Riddles in the Dark scene, in which Bilbo acquires the One Ring and plays a game of riddles with Gollum, is exceptionally well done, matching some of the best moments of the original trilogy. Also, Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, and Richard Armitage are fantastic as Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin. I could even make the argument that Martin Freeman's Bilbo makes for a more engaging protagonist than Elijah Wood's Frodo. He is perfectly cast, handling the both the deadly serious moments and the lighter, more comedic moments with equal efficiency. And, of course, Andy Serkis is, as always, a delight as Gollum.
However, contrary to what critics have said, it wasn't until the company actually left the Shire that the film takes a turn for the worse. The middle hour and a half is horribly overproduced and padded all to hell. Almost immediately after leaving the Shire, the group is attacked by Orcs, something that not only never happened in the original book, but was never mentioned in any of the Appendices for The Return of the King where Jackson and company allegedly mined for additional background material. The sequence with the stone trolls was not only badly written, stupid, and slapsticky, but [SPOILER ALERT!!!!] deviates from Tolkien's text in having Bilbo outsmart the trolls instead of Gandalf. There's also a very tacked on subplot involving a very pissed off Orc named Azog who just happens to be Thorin's mortal enemy, and who pursues the characters for the duration of almost the entire movie. There's another seemingly pointless subplot involving Radagast the Brown, a rather irritating wizard who likes to hang out with animals and rides a bunny sleigh(!). He's somehow pieced together that the Necromancer, a dark wizard who resides at the stronghold of Dol Guldur in southern Mirkwood, is Sauron. Additionally, the Sauron/Necromancer/White Council subplot not only feels out of place in this movie, but feels like unnecessary attempt to try to ties the events of The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings.
I'd also like to mention that I didn't much care for the look of the movie, particularly the obviously CGI goblins and sets. One of the things that made the original LOTR films so captivating was the amount of craftsmanship that went into making the world feel like a real, tangible place. The heavy prosthetics and "bigatures", very large miniature scale models that made impossibly large sets look so believably authentic, have been axed in favor of CGI, which gives the world a very artificial look. In fact, there is so much CGI that it doesn't even look as if it belongs in the same franchise as the other three movies, let alone takes place in the same world. The Orc Azog is particularly distracting, as he is a 100% CGI creation and looks it. I was also distracted by the Great Goblin, ruler of Goblin-town beneath the Misty Mountains, who is not only CGI, but almost looks as if he belongs in a Saturday-morning-cartoon. I'd also like to mention that I saw this film in 24fps instead of Jackson's preferred 48fps, so I can't comment on how it looks at a higher framerate. I also watched it in 3D, which was actually pretty unnecessary. I would advise watching this one in 2D, as 3D adds absolutely nothing.
On a more positive note, I mentioned earlier that the film picks up in the last hour-to-45 minutes, and I mean it. The Goblin-town sequence is exceptionally fast-paced and exciting, in spite of the overabundance of CGI. With the exception of a few impossibly over-the-top stunts (which actually make some of the more over-the-top moments of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull look tame by comparison), I actually started to become really engaged in the proceedings and left the theater feeling a lot more optimistic for the next two films in the trilogy. I can only hope that Peter Jackson takes the criticisms to heart by removing some of the bloat that was ultimately the film's undoing.
Overall, I give the movie 3 out of 4 stars, although it could easily change upon repeat viewing.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012
Any Day Now (Travis Fine)
You know...it's hard to hate on a movie like this with its heart so firmly in the right place, but eventually that's all you can see. The first few scenes of the movie are rather nice and a surprisingly palatable take on the old "Caretakers reformed by Kid" thing, but Travis Fine is less interested in that and more interested in the legal battle which is a histrionic bore. Some very good acting by Alan Cumming, but really this movie was never going to be much better than "meh".
You know...it's hard to hate on a movie like this with its heart so firmly in the right place, but eventually that's all you can see. The first few scenes of the movie are rather nice and a surprisingly palatable take on the old "Caretakers reformed by Kid" thing, but Travis Fine is less interested in that and more interested in the legal battle which is a histrionic bore. Some very good acting by Alan Cumming, but really this movie was never going to be much better than "meh".
"How's the despair?"